So, as I said previously, there is a growing movement in Australia and elsewhere in the world for an electronic, online approach to governance issues (voting, policy, community consultation, access to MPs/congresspeople, government data and standards etc.), all falling under a broad heading of Gov2.0. This loose definition above can be contested, and has been, but the drive always seems to be the same: open up government by putting it on the web. The proposals can be reflected in recent work by Senator Kate Lundy of the ACT and her staff, regarding examples of Gov 2.0:
- Using GeoSpatial data to display the most accessible government services available to a young mother in Cowra.
- Using social media tools for constituent consultation on a new government proposal or legislative draft.
- A government agency making some of its data publicly accessible, and then working collaboratively with the broader community and industry in preparation for/the midst of an emergency situation. (full article here)
I attended the first of the “Public Sphere” meetings Lundy and Waugh reference in the article, and came home with mixed opinions. The message that came through was that Gov2.0 shows immense promise for connecting citizens more or less directly to their MPs and beyond to engage in political consultation. This can be done anywhere from the grass roots level all the way through to the highest level of government, such as Kevin Rudd’s own personal twitter page.
So far, so good. My problem comes under what is popularly known as the digital divide (DD). Broadly understood, the DD is a reflection of the difference between the portion of individuals in a community who are competent, current users of digital technologies, and those who aren’t. This is to be understood not only as people who have access to technology, but those who can use it competently. How we measure the digital divide is contentious, but the results should be pretty clear from the Wikipedia page, and its associated content– while shrinking rapidly, it is still a problem.
Now, without Gov2.0, bridging the digital divide may be seen as an act that it would be a net good to perform. But with Gov2.0, it becomes a obligation. Look at it this way: from the perspective of most liberal approaches to justice, democratic participation is a strongly protected right. Moreover, every individual must have the maximum amount of democratic participation conducive to everyone else having the same amount. That’s pretty Rawlsian, yes, but I’m confident most liberals won’t disagree when it comes to the good of democratic participation. So, if Gov2.0 wants to make this participation primarily online, people have to have it societally assured. Everyone given the vote must have the opportunity to exercise it equal to others. If they don’t choose to, that’s something else entirely. But to give preference to some (richer people with more access to ICTs) over others strikes a problematic chord.
Of course, the NBN will go a long way to helping this, but hardware access will also be a part. Smartphones will also play a part, but some of this hardware may well become an obligation to provide, just to participate in the game of democracy. The famous $100 laptop will also help, but will need serious policy to develop. ”One laptop, one child” will need to be supplemented with “one vote, one laptop, one citizen of legal voting age.”
In addition, this isn’t necessarily particular to Gov2.0. But as something that is being touted as a revolution, it should at least seek to debug the problems from the older versions of democracy, rather than just patching new, exciting features over the preexisting flaws.
